Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues More Music Lovers
DominoTree writes "The RIAA, a trade group representing the U.S. music industry has filed a new round of lawsuits against 744 people it alleges used online file-sharing networks to illegally trade in copyrighted songs, it said on Wednesday."
The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) said the various suits, filed in courts across the country, cover "John Doe" defendants whose true identities are unknown to the group.
From the previous group of John Doe suits more folks have been identified:
Separately, suits covering 152 people who were previously sued anonymously but later identified and offered the chance to settle, were refiled with their true identities after they ignored or declined those offers, an RIAA (news - web sites) spokesman said.
I still maintain that suing your customers, whether your are the RIAA or SCO, can have a chilling effect on sales.
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
If they only sue approx 700 people a month and the net population is growing at a faster rate then can they physically keep up with the explosion of P2P and file sharing?
or is the RIAA just using mass-mugging tactics? Seems the ACLU or EFF or someone would want to make a big public test case out of some individuals lawsuit defense.
"Would you, could you, with a goat?" Dr Seuss
Film at 11... oh wait, make that puppet theater at 11, since the RIAA has confiscated the film
Underholdning.info
"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
Is it really news that the RIAA is still filling lawsuits against grandmothers and 12 year olds?
In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
Oh.. wait..
Why can't these 'illegal downloaders' just repay the RIAA with their purchased CDs, like the RIAA got to do?
Of course, the repayment CDs would be chosen by the defendants, just like the RIAA got to do.
You all need to get your butts over to MEDIACHEST.COM http://www.mediachest.com/ and start trading your music, DVDs, CDs, and Books there.
(This is not a plug, I don't work for them or get paid by them)
Basically, you catalog your collection of stuff using their amazon-like lookup functions, and then other people can search your collections (they find you by Groups, by Zip Code, etc) and then you trade with them any way you want (in person, by mail, etc).
This service is excellent because the RIAA and MPAA and FBI and whomever else cannot I repeat CANNOT get you on law breaking. As the 'swapping' happens offline, they have no way to find out about it.
Please give it a shot, if this website takes off the world be a happier place.
Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
Why not pay your favorite artist personally?
Circumvent the managers at the RIAA by letting your software music jukebox manage your favorite artists. This requires a central database listing creative works and the artists who actually made them so that you can donate automatically to your favorite artists.
problem: telling some site what kind of music you have my get you sued as you declare to have illegal music.
solution: give partial hash code (checksum). Site returns say 200 potential hits. You verify for yourself if you have have a copyrighted song 'belonging' to the site. You discard the 199 misses and you use the info about the song to compensate the listed artist directly. This can be done anonymously: "I love your (unspecified) work here is a donation of 20 cents". Artist uses statistics to figure out how to compensate those who helped him with popular creations if the donations rise above thousands of dollars.
So you spend say 300 dollar per year to (automatically) compensate your favorite artists directly without confessing a crime as your jukebox figures out compensation anonymously and you can also donate manually, even though you do not have any works of arts of that artists in your possession, making the system a black box, meaning that donations do not directly indicate illegal possession.
Why pay for distribution? Let's circumvent the RIAA.
--
Dennis SCP
Kudos on the inflammatory title. They're not even infringers, they're "Music lovers"! :P
It's been a long time.
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
Please continue turning a blind eye to reality. Please continue to pulverize youngsters for sharing music, which youngsters have done since anyone could copy a tune on a banjo or flute. Please continue to support corporations with broken business models. Please continue to encourage businessmen to neglect the physical realities of their product in favor of government backed enforcement of arbitrary laws.
Some day, all of these evil p2p sharing kiddies will come visit you in the nursing home. Enjoy your power while you've got it. It'll never substitute for intelligence.
Steven
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
It was in the article that fans are stating that the decline in CD sales is not due to piracy, but the quality of the music (in terms of performer's talent) being published. It's not mentioned in the article about the cost of CDs being a contributing factor. The RIAA lost a class-action suit for setting CD prices high. When you set a price for something, there is a certain demand for the product at that price level. If there is a significant price increase, the demand will drop off to where only the people who really see value for what they are going to spend will buy.
All the better reason for me not to buy another CD again. Last time I bought one was in '99.
"RIAA Sues More Music Lovers"
I guess that sounds a little nicer than the truth. "RIAA Sues More People Who Habitually Break the Law"
scott
Sadly, this would probably be trumpeted as "yet more evidence that piracy hurts CD sales".
I don't download music, and I haven't bought a CD in years.
BTW, an interesting alternative is to digitize analog from FM or digital cable, then rip to MP3. It's even legal (VCR law). ;-) You won't notice a quality difference in most situations.
Just don't share.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The headline is misleading, and puts an obviously pro-filesharing (pro-piracy?) spin on the whole thing.
It's like if someone was getting mauled by a dog, and another person ran over and killed the dog to save the person, and the headline ran: Man Beats Puppy To Death
A bit misleading, no?
evil adrian
As a Canadian, I will do these people justice by using my protected rights to share gigabyte after gigabyte of pirated music.
We need more Canadians to have music 'available' for download. We could really cause a ripple effect in which so many of us can legally provide music to p2p apps, that there would be no way to stop the rest of the world.
I'm going home tonight, making a bunch of torrents for my 100 disc collection of mp3, and making all few thousand singles available on gnutella network.
I propose a rally of all Canadians or any other nation that can legally share music. If you can share music, spend the bandwidth and do it. Lets create so much of a problem that the RIAA is defenseless.
Let's show the RIAA that we are in control.
-
The RIAA is suing *distributors*, not mere downloading "music lovers". Distributing copyrighted content has never been legal. It's not fair use to serve up a song for download by others.
If some guy is selling ripped CDs on the side of the road that's illegal, just because you're doing it online for free doesn't make you any better.
If they were suing people for downloading a song we'd have something to be outraged about, but people serving the downloads have brought it on themselves.
Including the 744 from Wednesday, the RIAA has sued nearly 4,700 people since last September in its efforts to combat piracy, which the music industry has blamed for a multiyear decline in CD sales. Some music fans have countered that bad music, and not piracy, was to blame for the decline.
My maths might be wrong but 5000 people sued in year, 2.5 million kazaa users divided by 5000 = 500. So in 500 years time they will have sued everybody. Good luck to em.
the last A makes me happy i dont live there
Those USB connected XM Radios are dirt cheap (~$39 if I remember right)... somebody needs to make a TiVo like recording engine for it.
Just let it record and catalog in the background 24/7.
--Rob
Sheeesh, this is pretty much a re-post of the same comment a few days ago. First the stories are duped, now comments are getting duped? What's next?
In the UK we have a similar but different thing, every couple of weeks the police arrest about 100 people around the country under our wonderful new terrorism laws (thank you Blunkett) then about 6 months later 99 of them get released without any charges. oddly around the same time about 4 people are released from concentration camp x-ray and are flown back to the UK where they get questioned for about 24 hours and then released.. without charges.. maybe they're actually filesharing or something?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I no longer listen to music released under RIAA labels. There is plenty of music out there released under different labels, much of which is better anyway.
I don't support corporations that sue their customers on a regular basis.
Grrrrr... don't bother me, I'm thinking.
Is it illegal to download a digital copy of something that you have already purchased (ie. misplaced it, have on vinyl or on a scratched up CD)?
I am old enough to have 2 large boxes of vinyl. One day I would like to find them online in digital format. And, I have a CD sitting right in front of me that is so scratched that I can not recover the music from it. Am I not entitled to download digital copies of those?
So, if the RIAA comes knocking, where's the burden of proof if you say you already own the music?
Is porn copyrighted? Is that illegal to file-share?
I'm just askin' is all. No reason in particular. None at all.
free online diet tracking.
I'd blame the increase in DVD and video game sales, but that's just wild speculation my my part.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is what can result when mediacompanies (dreamworks in this case) goes after torrent trackers and warez-traders abroad:
Piratebay response to dreamworks
kid to teacher: "he stole my lunch money!"
teacher: "who did?"
kid: "that lawyer over there!"
A good way to tell if an album is released by an RIAA member is to use the RIAA Radar website.
It's a good way to boycott the RIAA while still being able to buy CDs.
This is why I like being an SBC customer, as far as I know they still refuse to cooperate with the RIAA and thier John Doe IP address lawsuits. I feel sorry for any file sharers who use RoadRunner, which is owned by TimeWarner, which is a record company.
put low quality mp3s for free download (add an advert at the start and the end to hence make money) and let people download them. If they like them then people will goout and buy them.
It's a simple cure AND they get money from selling thr advertising space. Why haven't they tried this yet? They can also track who downloads it, put upa mini survery, whatever is popular they can whore even more.
It's fucking common sense and costs alot less then repeatedly sueing people.. and makes you get a free fans.
I like muppets.
"iRATE radio is a collaborative filtering system for music. You rate the tracks it downloads and the server uses your ratings and other people's to guess what you'll like. The tracks are downloaded from websites which allow free and legal downloads of their music."
Free, open source iRate radio
Settling is a lot faster than trial. RIAA has no hurry either, it is the press coverage they seek. The settlements are slump change to the RIAA. Don't expect any rulings for quite some time.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Caveat Canem: If RIAA get subponea the tracker's operator, they can get hold of the IP you were using . Then if they can subponea the ISP to whom the IP belongs, you're in for big trouble.
Perhaps someone would come up with an anonymizing version of the BT protocol soon. The current version is not safe at all.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
OMG the RIAA just bought SCOX...
suing customers must be the new fangled business strategy
Don't Tread on OpenSource
the ability to scan their machine for tradable files and then get them for sharing
Filenames are not directly indicative of content.
A suspicious government will imprison its people in the same manner that suspicious parents ground their children.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
"It's not stealing, only the big evil RIAA loses money!"
I know somebody who is not rich, not an evil RIAA executive, and hell, he doesn't even make music, but he has personally been hurt by P2P file traders who think it's their 'right' to get everything they want for free.
This guy does in depth analysis of political issues and publishes research online that are used by high school and college debate teams. He provides a very valuable service since there would not be enough time to stay abreast of current political issues and also be prepared to debate so his reports act as executive summaries to condense all the garbage floating around on Google.
So what happens to his stuff? Well there are a few people out there who will pay for it, but then P2P kicks in and for every 1 debate team that buys the report there are probably 10 that don't.
"Information wants to be free!" "It's evil to want to get money for your work!" (in which case why do you complain when your job is outsourced?)
This guy is providiing a valuable service, and he does it all on his own, but I'm sure there will be 10 posts rationalizing why stealing his work is OK and he is worse than Bush for daring to charge to make the lives of other people easier.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
I'm going to use the 5 step approach that Schneier utilises in Beyond Fear to analyse security decisions. Hope you enjoy this analysis. I don't have the book to hand so I'm not sure i've got the steps spot on but it's close enough.
What assets are you trying to protect? The profitability of copyrighted music.
What are the threats to your assets? The biggest threat to profitability is the very large levels of copyright infringement. This is such a massive risk that considering any other threat to profitability is a waste of time at this stage.
What is the proposed countermeasure? Suing random copyright infringers.
How does the countermeasure mitigate the risks? The idea is that by suing random copyright infringers you instill fear in people who are more risk adverse. They don't want to be slapped with a large fine so they'd rather pay for the record. There are a number of questions that need to be asked. Firstly, how many people does this approach really scare off? Secondly, How much revenue is it likely to recover? Let's say for every person sued 10 people decide not to infringe and go out and buy the record and each record brought a record for $3. Then the revenue brought in would be $2232. The cost of the legal action would be more than the revenue recieved. Even if 100 people were dissuaded for every infringer sued this would only increase to $223,320. You'd likely make a profit over the cost of the legal action but it'd be small and you've not really done much damage to the millions of remaining pirates. In light of this analysis, I don't think this counter-measure mitigates the risk.
What side-effects does the proposed counter-measure produce? People generally don't like to buy from a company that likes to sue its user base so public relations may be damaged. A side-effect of particular note is people boycotting your products. In those circumstances you've the lost sales as a direct result of deploying the counter-measure - a very bad situation.
Is the trade-off worth it? This step is always subjective but I think the counter measure is meritless given the damage to public image, the small amount of money recovered from most of the infringers and the small amount of people who actually stop downloading as a result of the legal action. The RIAA should consider other counter-measures.
Simon.
Undue persecution of boy lovers continues around the world.
Really, what a loaded and ridiculous headline. If you love music so much, try not to exterminate those that produce it by redistributing it free of charge by violating copyright law.
That would be a big NEGATIVE. .. very easy.
Its easy to pull IPs of those who are in a particular torrent
Every time the RIAA launches another round of lawsuits, I download more music. I try to do one CD for every person they sue, but it's hard to keep up.
The BT tracker keeps 'track' of all IP's that are connected to it and downloading/uploading a particular file.
BT does not and can not "scan your hard-drive" You only share the active torrents that you have open.
BT is NOT good for warez because if you are downloading or seeding a file, the server has your IP.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Nope, its been openly stated on slashdot before (and other places) that Bit Torrent is no more safer than Kazaa or Gnutella, due to the fact that you can get a list off of all trackers of who is sharing what file (duh, else how are you going to connect to them?)
It's like these people are taking the food directly from the mouth of Madonna's baby. How could they be so cruel?
Why do I keep typing pythong?
So what's the current state of file sharing? If I don't share any files but download illegally, will I get sued? Or are they still only pursuing those that share files?
Are there some tools that are safer than others? Bittorrent has always seemed safe to me, since you tend to only share some random bytes. What else is safe? SoulSeek? eDonkey? Gnutella2?
After the heyday of Napster, in the wake of all the P2P court cases, the general cry had two memes:
1 - only centralized networks would be vulnerable to lawsuit, so the RIAA was wasting its time going after the superstructures
2 - the networks are just tools; the traders are the ones violating the law, not the builders or maintainers of the networking software.
It seems like RIAA took this advice to heart. Their tactic seems perfectly legitimate to me. Callous, perhaps, but survival is what everything on Earth is concerned with... so I don't blame them.
And as for all the calls to boycott - why? RIAA are finally showing some sense and going after the individual violators rather than painting all P2P users with the same damning brush. People using P2P for legit purposes aren't affected by these lawsuits, and the networks aren't affected. What more could you ask for?
am i the only one that notices that 744 maps to rwx--r--r ? all rights to the owner, read-rights for everyone...
No, BitTorrent has been worse for me. This is completely true.
I've used FastTrack/Gnutella/OpenFT for a while now and never had a problem there. I used BitTorrent to download an episode of Star Trek Enterprise, and got a letter from my ISP forwarded from Paramount stating that I was liable for infringement. Ultimately nothing came of it, but they were obviously able to get my IP quite easily.
Your Rights Online BINGO
Download the card, print it out, and play!
Easy and fun: Every time someone comments about something in a box, or somethin g happens that matches an illustration, check off the box. You win if you can c onnect a full row, column or diagonal!
Bittorrent is safer because the official client is a small program written in Python, and you can see with the source that nothing is put on the network unknowingly.
As for the RIAA, the Azureus client has some kind of plug-in that prevents a list of IPs (those of RIAA spies) from getting the packets from you. It's not the most efficient privacy, but it's still an amusing idea.
Well, I'll give the obvious response to this:
Not buying music -> Lower RIAA sales -> RIAA blames reduction of sales on P2P, instead of being objective about the problem.
"Voting with your wallet" has been covered many, many times.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Someone's mention of Ashcroft brought up an interesting question in my mind. Is there any chance that this holy quest to bring down all filesharing activity would be any different if Kerry were elected? Personally, I wish there was a viable third party candidate, but since it's not going to happen in this election, I'm considering voting for Kerry solely on the fact that it will get Bush out of office. This website kind of sums up my thoughts on the election.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
So, expect trial losses to cost more than settlement.
Unless, of course, the defendent didn't actually share thousands of files -- I mean, does anybody actually do that? ;-)
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Why is that though? What if you payed for the cable channel that Star Trek is broadcast on. You are able to legally record it from the channel via a vcr or tivo or computer or whatever. Why is it you can not obtain the episode via the internet? Is there some sort of agreement from the cable companies that say "if you forgot to record it when we broadcast it, you can't watch it"?
I don't mind them suing for copyright infringment, but I would just like to see enough evidence to actually prove that the person is doing something illegal.
I don't know about being sued, but I've received a pretty nasty letter from MediaSentry on behalf of Columbia Pictures for downloading a movie on BitTorrent.
:)
As I'm in a rather large organization, it didn't come directly to me, but rather through the 'Security Officer' and various network guys. Let's just say I've stopped using that network and found other ways to get at stuff
Problem with BitTorrent isn't the downloading, but rather the automatic uploading. If you upload, you're a target.
Stay safe...
people are taking the fruits of his labour.
Blacksmiths are no longer in high demand because technology has left the blacksmiths products behind. Which is substantially different than people simply taking the fruits of the blacksmiths labour without paying for it.
In this guys example, his product is in high demand, (if 10 debate teams use the report for every 1 that actually buys it) people just refuse to pay for it.
Just as music is clearly in high demand if the volume of music trading that goes on on the various P2P networks is any indication, people are just taking the product without paying for it. That's not a change in business model, that's wholesale 'theft' of a product.
ability to scan their machine for tradable files and then get them for sharing.
I really doubt a list of file names would stand up in court. I can name files whatever I want, the RIAA or someone working for the RIAA has acknowlwdged releasing bogus files themselves as a P2P deterent in the past.
Without controlled detailed logs, and after downloading enough of or the complete track to determine if it was legitimate, the RIAA can not prove you actually were offering up a song. Remeber that P2P is shared too so they have to ensure and PROVE they got this file from you and only you. Again, a list of file names is NOT going to get the RIAA some type of multimillion dollar settlement. It appears it is getting them $1000-5000 from people now though.
It may take some time but eventually an accused file swapper will take this defensive route. For all we know, this may have already been attempted and resulted in one of the cases the RIAA "let go".
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Talk about overly slanted editing! LMAO
Hey, I love $$ CASH $$, so if I get take to some whenever I want by circumventing laws and protections that are in place, thats cool right, since I just *luv* cash money?!
I think the RIAA is heavy handed, but jesus criminey that headline is piss-poor!
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
In my country (Slovakia) there is a popoular czech communist propaganda TV series 30 Pípad majora Zemana (30 Cases of major Zeman). .
One episode (Mimikry) is about a group of musicians who distribute (politically) illegal songs. State security mixed this episode from several incidents. But the story may sound familiar to Americans these days.
The group distributes illegal songs and drugs. Major Zeman is going after them. And they DO hijack the airliner....
I'd also like to see a couple of extra categories.
Towelheads killed by USAF
Towelheads killed by RIVAL CLERICS
Houses bombed by ISRAEL
Plans for world control by ILLUMANTI
I recently devised a plan that would turn the RIAA's methods of searching for copyright infringement against them. Anyone think this would work?
RIAA Honeypot:
1) Create thousands of MP3 files with names of songs of popular bands that are under RIAA labels. However, make these MP3s contain nothing but dead air, or possibly you talking about the song. Make sure the "songs" are the correct time and comparable sizes. Also, if you own any real MP3s, take any media that holds or ever held the data and hide it away, possibly in a safety deposit box or some other long-term storage.
2) Log onto Kazaa and any other services that are being targeted. Stay on for a long time. Try to get sued.
3) When sued, willingly give your computer over as evidence.
4) In court, demand that each of these "songs" be played.
4a) Alternate: When they dismiss the suit once they get their hands on the "evidence", go to step 5.
5) When the suit is dismissed, file a countersuit for barratry, defamation, time lost due to having to deal with court, problems due to lack of a computer, etc. Make the dollar amount large enough that it'll damage them.
6) Profit. Encourage others to repeat.
It'd take a lot of work, but the payoff could be worth it.
The sorriest part of this whole thing is the sympathy people continue to show for the folks who are being sued. Look, I'm no fan of the RIAA's strong-arm tactics but if you STEAL, regardless of the logic you use when doing so, you run the risk of getting caught and being punished. I can't believe my eyes everytime I read posts like this on slashdot when even the title is purely sympathetic to the theives. This isn't robin hood and prince john folks. Nobody is stealing from the rich to give to the poor - they are just stealing. If any of these people went into a store and stole a CD or Tape and got caught they wouldn't be the sympathetic "victim". Nobody forced anyone to steal the music; now someone is just forcing them to pay for it.
I know it is fractionally off topic (see, now you can't mod me off topic without feeling as if you are picking on me) but I was watching TV (in the UK) this morning, and they were discussing the legal issues around getting permission from all those that took part in Live Aid so that a DVD of it can be produced and sold. Midge Ure is one of the legal caretakers of the whole Live Aid thing, and he was extolling how much money would be made for the poor/hungry/etc in Africa, and how he was humbled at the thought of this legacy continuing after he was long dead, continually making money for charity.
/would/ run out, there was no eternal legacy being left. Predicting the return argument that there should be eternal copyright, otherwise the poor Africans will lose out, I had ready a retort that if the copyright never ran out, all of society would be losing out.
/. so I could rant about this anyway.
Now, I didn't mean to think cruel thoughts, but I felt like phoning up and yelling about how copyrights
Of course, I didn't phone in, I had to come to work.. and so I have been waiting all day for a RIAA article on
The RIAA and MPAA are finding users on networks by searching for files that are shared and logging the IPs of the people allegedly sharing them.
:^)
Where Bit Torrent is concerned, each torrent is its own P2P network and with the right client, you can still access the IPs of all the clients on said torrent that are sharing the file.
So no, Bit Torrent is no greater for protecting your TCP/IP anonymity. The only recourse is non-public torrents that RIAA/MPAA couldn't see because they couldn't access.
If you're gonna let people get stuff from you, you've got to tell them where to get it from. Once the RIAA/MPAA know where to go, the fun begins.
Police are now arresting money lovers.
There are blocklists that you can load into iptables or azureus BT client. Obviously these lists do not work with the tracker, but only work to prevent someone on the blacklist from connecting to your machine.
Do these lists help at all, additionaly, does the owner of the copyright have to actually *connect* to your machine to see what you have for evidence or is just the fact that you are connected according to the tracker evidence enough?
The people who make energizer batteries are going to start suing the RIAA for making their rabbit marketing campaign to look like an also ran/second best, because the RIAA just keeps GOING and GOING...
[Now, I'm off to lift my le... Um, visit... at another place.]
Art Makers Just an excuse to show photos of naked women !!
RIAA Sues More Music Lovers
Really, they did that? I was under the impression that the RIAA was only suing people that pirate music, not people who love music enough to actually pay for it instead of stealing it.
Can you say which ISP?
Why doesn't the RIfuckingAA just interrupt all their CD tracks with commercials for Coke and/or aginst piracy?
People don't buy new music.
.... Don't you?
They want the same as they have always listened to, the same chord sequences and arrangements, with slight changes. Do anything 'difficult' that stretches that, even harmonicly simple additions and time signatures beyond 4/4 that modern composers have been doing since the 20's, and it won't sell.
So, we have a catch 22.
People want new music, but they are not prepared to make the effort to listen to anything challenging, so pop music has stayed very similar since the 50's. The song lengths, chord structures and melodys remain almost identical, only the choice of timbres has changed.
The public is happy with it's old records, they fulfill the need for mindless pop, so why do they need any more to add to the pile?
Remember, it's not your fault there is no new 'good' music, you put the effort in to find and learn to appreciate music that you initially find hard or upsetting, don't you?
the biggest problem with these suits is that the riaa is trying its best to coerce people into settling, even if the defendants have done nothing wrong.
folks are being steamrolled into forking over several thousand dollars to the riaa because it's cheaper than going to court to declare their innocence.
if a group of defendants could get together, hire a high dollar law firm, and do some honest to goodness discovery, i'd be willing to bet that a court would start throwing out a number of these suits.
right now, this has become a windfall for the riaa because it's like pushing over dominoes and they have no reason to stop doing it.
Is it 5:30 yet?
Is that going to be their defense? I can see the Lifetime movie now:
...for as the jury can plainly see, my clients just loved music too much!
Sensitive attorney, probably played by Ken Olin:
(spontaneous, riotous applause from the court, the jury, the judge. The RIAA's lawyer stabs himself with his car keys).
1. Sue customers 2. ??? 3. Profit!!
"If you mess with us, we're going to take you on, even to our utter destruction, whatever occurs." - Ralph Yarro (SCO)
To increase profits through litigation, rather than development of new and more compelling music.
I respectfully resubmit my previous comment.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
I think it could be argued that the original WAV file on the CD or whatever it was released as is the base starting point to determine if in fact a "copy" had been made. Law is exact a lot of times, words have meanings in the law. I think it could be argued that a lossy mp3 is merely a representation, and *not* a copy.
RIAA blames reduction of sales on P2P, instead of being objective about the problem.
So what? Blaming loses on P2P is NOT going to increase their sales and that's what they are after, are they not?
Besides, Boycotting RIAA products has nothing to do with P2P.
You can use free, legal iRate radio for example.
The RIAA is filing these lawsuits against people whom they allege traded songs copyrighted by RIAA **MEMBER LABELS**...
There are plenty of copyrighted songs floating around out there by people who are not RIAA members, or don't even care that it is happening, or in fact encourage it.
There are lots of taper-friendly bands who, while owning the copyright for their own songs, love it when fans trade recordings of live shows, etc...
I think it's time to start grouping these RIAA-member artists with the RIAA. I dislike the generalization that the RIAA somehow has legal authority over ALL copyrighted content, whether or not they represent the artist in questions, and whether or not the artist even cares.
This is exactly who they should sue, those making copyrighted works available to the public for free.
This is obviously better than having law enforcement become involved. (as started to happen yesterday)
They shouldn't sue the pnp software makers either.
If you make others copyrighted works available to the public without the consent of the copyright holders its a crime. Period. Your walking all over the rights of the creators.
Don't like it don't buy RIAA music. It doesn't make it right to take it and not pay for it.
This is to protect content producers. If the content producers want to give there stuff away for free, thats their right too (see GNU license).If they want to sign a record deal, thats there business. Its about the rights of those that created the music to do what they want with it.
It used to be called bootlegging. Now its a right?
Copyrights do eventually expire. (although it seems to take longer and longer but that is another story..)
wrong.
You can violate copyright by creating a lossy coppy. Even if you show it is not a copy, you're still on the hook for creating a derivative work.
basically, he said citizens have a duty to oppose unjust laws by breaking them...
not to intrude on your idealism, but there are degrees of injustice, and i'd contend that the injustice done to the public good by the Sonny Bono Act is magnitudes greater than the injustice done to the record cartel's bottom line!
i though that we wanted to chmod 740 NOT 744 with that damn RIAA. wait, this doesn't even make sense.
I am feeling fat and sassy
How did they know your IP? How did they know what you were downloading? I have never used BT, but I thought you did not have to give up your IP to the server if you were only downloading.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Recorded Music Production:I nd=C2600&cycle=2004&recipdetail=A&sortorde r=U
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?
Movie Production:I nd=C2400&cycle=2004&recipdetail=A&sortorde r=U
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?
Answer for the lazy: John Kerry (D)
Next, sum up the numbers in the two tables by party and please note it is an order of magnitude difference.
Democrats: $2,975,145
Republicans: $243,400
(Figures quoted are as of the date/time of this posting.)
IANAL..... ....but the fact that you are activly downloading AND uploading data, (the lawyers would have to d'load the file themselves to "prove" that it is indeed copyrighted material.
Here is an interesting idea: If the lawyers are indeed uploading the file are they not condoning or giving permission for others to do the same?
Black-lisitng is fine but you have no way of knowing who is on the other end of that IP, It's probably a valid user like yourself.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
This is their new business model. It's a very good one (for them at least).
These lawsuits are VERY lucrative. Think about how many millions of dollars these lawsuits are generating? I guarantee you that they're squeezing more revenue out of each john doe (1 - 2 thousands on average?) in one shot (they're all settling out of court, virtually no investment in litigation) than they'd have made out of them over a lifetime of music purchases!
Ok, I think the title was stretching it a bit, but that's beside the point.
While the people being arrested may think of themselves as "music lovers," their practice of sharing music makes them anything but music lovers. Usually when I love a product, I pay for it. I don't use it without a license and then distribute it to thousands of strangers without a license. That's why I had a Napster premium subscription and now I buy from iTunes.
For all of the people that claim that they only share/download music that they would never buy, I think that's a total load of crap. If you care enough about a song or album to download it from a P2P service, I think you'd pay $0.99/$9.99 for it on iTunes, if you weren't so cheap. If you honestly can't afford it, that's no excuse either. All of us have to make sacrifices when we're under a budget crunch - that's just part of being a fiscally responsible person.
I will probably get the obligitory "I download songs that I already own on disk." My comments here aren't directed at those people, and I don't think they should be subjected to any litigation for their actions.
Mod me down as as troll or flamebait if you wish, but I've seen one too many of these stories and all of the related whining to keep my mouth shut any longer.
</rant>
Five Dolla Moddy-Moddy?
Otherwise you would understand the difference between John Ashcroft, Sunny Bono, and the RIAA, and how and what each of them had to do with this.
Like linux distributions? ..wait a second!
no
I'm going to debunk this once and for all..
... IP blockers are -USELESS- in this case, the Azerus people are wasting their time creating a false sense of security for their users.
Disclaimer: IAABCA (I _AM_ A BitTorrent Client Author)
It is -trivially- easy for the *AA to get
a) your IP
b) what files you're downloading
c) how much you've downloaded
d) how much you've uploaded
And they can do all this without ever connecting to your computer
All the above information is gained from the tracker level. Many even have a nice web-based interface to this information. (See, for example, here, login may be required)
If you're in a country where P2P is illegal (I'm in Canada, all my development and downloading goes on here, and so far the consumer is winning the war here) then don't download illegal material with BT, they're watching, and there's nothing you can do.
Regarding the guy who said "just don't upload and they can't do anything".. BT works on tit-for-tat. You send a block, you get (usually) 3 back. Sometimes a client will take pity on you, and send you a free block (to test how fast it can send to you, and if you will send back or not). In other words.. no uploading == very, very slow downloading, if any at all, which negates the purpose of BT.
BitTorrent is NOT a protocl for spreading w4r3z. It is for spreading large legitimate files in a situation where the author doesn't have access to the resources to spread the files himself.
DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
WE, the PEOPLE, define property rights here in the USA. Some of us think that the enTITLEments given to the wealthy and the corporations by the government (i.e., copyrights) are OUT OF LINE, INAPPROPRIATE, etc.
So if this is indeed a country run for the people and by the people, then we are right and you are wrong. That process of deciding what is the will of the people is an ongoing one.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Why is that though? What if you payed for the cable channel that Star Trek is broadcast on. You are able to legally record it from the channel via a vcr or tivo or computer or whatever. Why is it you can not obtain the episode via the internet?
That was exactly my thinking. I wasn't even going to keep a copy of it, just watch it once.
The only other possible case I could see where this could be harmful to the content creator is if that episode was available on DVD (like the other ST series) and they suspected file sharing would hurt DVD sales. But that wasn't the case here.
Or am I confused?
I don't use P2P anymore for sharing songs. However, in the last few months I have recovered 2 PCs from the dumpster at my apartment.
Because the previous owners of these PCs did not wipe their hard drives, I have been able to recover over 5 Gigs of mp3 files.
On one machine the files were in the Program Files/KaZaA/My Shared Files folder. On the other machine they were just in the My Documents/My Music folder.
I'm wondering what the legal disposition of those files is?
Read any good sonnets lately?
If only we could get the DOJ this interested in Credit Card Fraud, Stalking, Identity Theft, and Spam... You know, *real* crimes with actual *victims*
Don't be fooled into giving away your rights.
If you buy a piece of computer software in a box, then you have the same rights as when you buy a book, a CD, etc, etc. You can resell it as you see fit.
The licensing BS is what they want you to believe. If it were to come right down to it, the precedents you mentioned would have some bearing on the outcome of that case, you can count on it.
If you steal from a shop, that item is physically missing and cannot be sold.
If you make a copy of an mp3, the original is still there.
Of course RIAA products aren't related to P2P. That is my point exactly when it comes to blaming P2P for lost sales being a little bit illogical.
Whatever little logic remains, their blaming of losses on P2P may not directly increase their sales, but it's their first step in making sure they at least hold on to their market share, with the most optimistic outcome in their perspective being that they restore their CD sales to something they accept.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Out of curiosity, who (other than 14 year old girls) is getting sued? Anyone here?
Back in the day, like everyone, I used apps like Napster, Kazaa, etc to get and share files. Since then, I've stopped, because in part, of the RIAA. Has anyone here been sued? How far back do they look and how small time do they go for people that shared?
It seems like a lot of time and money to go after someone sharing even a few thousand files while there are much bigger pirating operations out there now. Personally, their law suits did in a way work, as I don't share much, but that is more because of the spy ware than anything. I avoid Kazaa, but I will ocassionally use other P2P applications to get various files.
But while I don't download mp3s anymore, I also don't buy more CDs. In general, I always bought CDs from my favorite groups, even if I could get the mp3s and I downloaded music only when I had some interest in it, but not enough to pay $18 for a CD. If they sold CDs at $10 or less, I'd be more likely to buy more marginal ones I'd never spend my money on. I think that is the key thing they are missing. Otherwise, how would they still be selling millions of CDs?
steal little, steal big, you are still stealing. But please, carry on with the usual justifications.
Is there a legally defined definition that has a percentage of original work tied to it? I am just wondering how far you could introduce fair use into it. Take written material. AFAIK, there is no actual percentage, just something under 100%. If it's a derivative, I don't see how any new music could be released, every note possible has been hit and recorded so far you would think. If representations of the original are disallowed, that would affect fine visual art as well. Example- "picture of a woman", sorry, already been done, even if yours is different in certain aspects by the arrangement and quantity of pixels, it's still a representation of previously copyrighted work. See? If that doesn't fly in the visual world, and it obviously doesn't, why is it acceptable for audio? Shouldn't the law be equally applied?
Is it the arrangement of notes, the notes themselves, or what? If it's *both* that would tend to validate that no new music would be allowed, because if you separate it, that means the concept is ambiguous and unclear and could be argued in court. Maybe, don't know, just guessing.
I know it's a fine line, but court cases all the time are determined by a fine line and exact word meanings, it's lawyers bread and butter.
To me, this is probably a gray area that might be re explored.
I used to get in trouble as a kid for not sharing.
Selfishness is back in style, baby!
This reminds me of George Bush vs. the Freedom Haters and Evil Doers.
Is this considered "illegal" trading? Thanks, and I'll take the answer off the air.
.nosig
Yeah, that's right RIAA. But I'll also buy what mp3's I dig. Take for instance Breaking Benjamin. I pulled down a crapload of their songs via Kazaa and, apon realising they rock out, rushed down to Future Shop to gets me a copy just yesterday. The fact that my cd burner isn't working is beside the point.
The point is you greedy bastards at RIAA got your money. You have a great advertising and distribution mechanism working for you and you won't even admit it.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
I know I'll feel MUCH safer and be able to allow my kids back outside once these scourge are off the streets! Let's all push for the death-penalty for these lawless hooligans! I know I won't rest until I know that the record companies are safely making billions per year.
perlguy
-- Windows security? Sure, which ONE would you like? -me
I agree, there was some anarchist group (black tea society) that had everywhere on their site they were going to do things to and at the DNC. What the hell is or was the DNC?
Democratic National Convention.
Anytime you use an abbreviation you *must* spell it out in full at least once.
Just one prblem - while you download a song, you are also sharing it.Even if you download it and immediately remove it from your shared folder/directory, you're still sharng the thing while downloading, even if only from the temp directory where the file is being stored for assembly.
Some P2P systems, such as BitTorrent, in fact rely on this very thing to exist at all.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I'm a recovering filesharer and I've been on iTunes for about six months. Usually, I find that people who share their music are either totally oblivious to the fact that it's illegal and there's a war going on over it, or they just resent the cost and inconvenience of going out and buying a CD.
Excuses for stealing:
- Lack of alternatives (taken care of, already lots of services and competition)
- Cost (negated, only $1 per song or $10 per album)
- Try before you buy (services tend to have preview clips)
- Convenience (services are more convenient)
- Online music stores won't work because things will get stolen anyway (terrible argument, laws work because of a societal agreement to follow the laws of the society, stopping piracy "should" lower prices (well, maybe, we can hope))
- Selection (admittedly, many stores are lacking in rare genres, but then the record companies would be at fault for not offering the goods and thus stealing would not cut too drastically into profits. This would be stealing no one would care about)
Really, at this point in time, the only people stealing are the apathetic, the stingy, and the pretending revolutionaries. (And if you're using file-sharing to get rare files the RIAA doesn't allow selling over OMS, is it really stealing?) Supporting the legality of a bare-faced crime defies logic. Considering other things like the disorganization of the effort, the utter apathy of much of the rank-and-file, and the rhetoric without action, this is a losing effort.By the way, I'm a paying EFF member, so I'm doing more for your effort than any one of you who is just spouting rhetoric. (Though I'm in it for the overall EFF cause of protecting valid digital rights; my position on file sharing versus RIAA is to stop the slippery slope of the RIAA litigating against legal uses.) If you want to fight the good fight, put your money where your mouth is, then we can talk.
"However, one point that is often overlooked here is that this is their decision to make, not ours."
Their decision to make for the time being, at least until I2P, Mute, AntsP2P, Freenet et al. is up and running.
What happens when these are networks up full scale? Well then either the RIAA and copyright as we know it folds, RIAA puts up with the copyright infrindgers, or we turn into a great big happy police state to protect the idea monopolists' profits.
I understand packets.
But my point is, did the person who get the letter dl from the riaa itself? Or did the riaa get the ip from the server logs.
Or was the riaa downloading a song itself from multiple sources? I wonder if what happened was the poster who got the letter downloaded the Star Trek episode, and because BT forces you to become an uploader of the file you are downloading, the riaa downloaded the same star trek episode and got his ip directly from the operating system.
So, I would say that BT is NOT as safe as kazaa.
All you have to do to avoid legal entanglements is use kazaa, but don't share, or only share files that are noncopywrited. So, American file traders must leech off of Europeans, Canadians, South Americans, Asians, Australians.
Why is this the case? It always comes back to this: contrary to the Preamble to the American Constitution, America is NOT "for the people, by the people". OTHER countries, such as those on listed above, are MORE "for the people, by the people" than is America.
But what puzzles me is, WHY, WHY, do Americans fail to face this fact?
Is it that we have been bamboozled, propagandized by the teevee? After all, the teevee is the preeminent American babysitter. Is this the price we pay for our lifestyle? Thought-slavery by propaganda?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I think one reason they go after the P2P is primarily because its so simple to use that anybody can do it, whereas with the newsgroups, its complex and even after you explain it to most folks, they don't get it (because www == Internet to 99% of the public).
Plus, its not at all clear that downloading from the newsgroups is terribly illegal, and further its much easier to hide identities of uploaders.
Finally, the groups that download are relatively small, considering that you have to buy NNTP access for about $20+ a month; something that limits it for most people, since they don't even understand what it is.
Bottom line: I think the newsgroups are background noise for these guys.
Hey so what happens if there are a whole bunch of people sharing the same IP behind a router. Do all of them get sued?
These alleged copies aren't on the media they were originally released on either, so in that aspect they aren't a copy either. Now just to me, if it's a copy, it would have to be on a CD and in the original form.
But who knows, the industry has been busted for monopolistic practices before,including conspiracy-RICO- to set prices artificially high and to insure that only their pet projects get universal airplay from payola to stations and DJs, and instead of those corporations being dissolved,lose their corporate charters in other words, they are allowed to continue. That's an even bigger crime, IMO.
BitTorrent: 1 file many IP adresses
Kazaa: many files one IP address
Is it simply easier to sue selected people for trading many files in one go?
Really a good post, but the pest part is this, I laughted out loud.
"The government is not their personal Guido."
I also agree that copyright infrindgement is an artifical crime. Copyright property is a state-sponsored temporary monopoly which creates a scarcity which does not correspond to any state in reality. An *artifical* scarcity which does not exist or would exist except as created by law.
3dinfo@maficstudios.com
744 people sued!
Only 4.326.849 P2P users to go!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Using BitTorrent means sharing, this is the MPAA interpretation. Every BitTorrent downloader is also running a server, BECAUSE, YOU OFFER FRAGMENTS OF FOR UPLOADING.
For this reason MPAA considers that BitTorrent downloading is equivalent to running a server. They do not send cease and desist letters to people downloading files, only to people running servers, INCLUDING BITTORRENT USERS.
Downloading with BitTorrent was safe for about one year, until October 2003. Starting November 2003 companies hired by MPAA scan the Internet regularly for illegal files shared via BitTorrent. If you are caught downloading even A SINGLE ILLEGAL FILE with BitTorrent, you will receive a cease and desist letter; in case your ISP cooperates, you'll have your internet connection shut down. If you are caught a few times, you end up being sued.
Conclusion: STAY AWAY FROM BITTORRENT, use download only methods.
Before you MOD me down, ask yourself this: are you mad because my opinions upset you with a different point of view or am I writing nonsense?
signature pending slashdot approval
"Yes, you're correct, our only decision is whether to buy stuff from them or not. The real irony of the situation is the harder they try to protect their revenue stream the more of it they will lose."
Maybe, but the point still stands. Besides is it really a wise policy to try to control others decisions? Good or bad? "Hey! JWW you're making a bad decision. Here, let society set you on the correct path."
...but it's their first step in making sure they at least hold on to their market share
Read the title again, it says "Boycott RIAA products". Sure as hell, it will NOT help RIAA to hold on to their market share. And yes, use RIAA alternatives such as iRate radio.
Our culture, like our politics and economy, is belated, bloodless, and exhausted. Everyone is tired of it.
That's why most people are far more interested in music technology than they are in music.
I should also point out that all the other copyrighted material on P2P networks also hurts any legitimacy argument for P2P.
Once AGAIN the bad apples have taken a good idea and ruined it for everyone else. Sometimes the worst enemies a society can have isn't a nameless, faceless corporation, for one can point to that and say "there it is". But a sea of faces hiding all that's bad with our society and us.
Boss, I still can't figure out why this isn't working. We followed the steps exactly:
1) Sue customers
2) ???
3) Profit
What you say? That's supposed to be "Don't sue customers"?
Sweet lovers are bemoaning the latest legal action by Nestle, manufacturer of popular sweet mixtures such as "Quality Street" and "Roses". In recent years, many sweet lovers have been acquiring sweets without paying for them, an activity which the industry is now trying to stamp down on.
One "sweet sharer" whined: I got taken to court for allegedly stealing toffee whirls, which is totally out of order. I like the toffee whirls and believe I should be able to have them without paying for the pack."
To all you file sharers - quit whining. The RIAA is acting within the law. If you don't want to pay for your music then listen to the fucking radio. If you do "share" copyrighted music, then be prepared to face up to the penalty.
I think that everyone is missing the point entirely.
The RIAA has become a Juggernaught, and like any other Organisation or being want to continue in its' existence. It has created jobs for like minded people, and employs quite a few I imagine. So in these trying employment times, they are going to continue this fight for one simple reason. $$$ I imagine they make quite a nice little salary out of all this. It's the same as Governmental employment, once you're in you're in. I bet alot of these are figuring on using the RIAA to springboard them into something else, never realizing themselves for the carrion that they really are. It's nice and Dandy that the Music Industry doesn't go after Price fixing, gouging and racketeering as well or they would have to exercise their tactics on themselves. The difference between the Music Industry and a regular thief? The Music Industry has a SteamRoller for a legal Team,aand the Regular Joe File Swapper is swinging in the breeze all by thier lonesome. In the end the RIAA will do what it does, because everytime it launches a case and gets press coverage, it ensures that someone is keeping a JOB.
My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
"Most crime is real. Intellectual property and copyright are intangible. Can you tell the difference between music which was purchased vs. music downloaded with only your ear? If someone tells you they have a "great idea" can you immediately swear that they didn't hear it from someone else two days earlier?"
I think he's driving at the fact that what's a crime and what isn't is an man-made construct, hence artificial. I should point out that Identity theft is an intangable as well. But you wouldn't argue for it's proliforation, or an absence of punishment, now would you?
"A musician's music isn't the musician's anymore. It belongs to some media conglomerate. You're attempting to arouse sympathy for a group of people who aren't even involved anymore."
One they by free will made an exchange with those media conglomerates. Money for music (just as your job is an exchange). They are very much "involved" as long as those Media conglomerates honor the exchange. Also you nor those media conglomerates speak for everyone. What of those musicians?
"It's not stealing. The product was legally sold. Rights of ownership were transferred at the point of sale. Misrepresenting a rental as a sale is a poor way of defending business stupidity. If they feel they are losing profits they should reevaluate the worth of their product."
I suggest you read the copyright code more carefully. What you own is the media, and a license to use it. Fair use and the rest of the code tells you what you can do, and what you can't do with that COPY. Not the original.
"The music industry should take a lesson. Making criminals out of customers is the wrong business model. Why not admit,"We're so stupid that we didn't realize our product was so easily copied.""
There's no great wisdom in making customers out of criminals either. As for the "stupid" part. Are you really arguing for a regression in what technology has brought us? Maybe "we" are too stupid to use technology in a fair and honest manner, and others have to suffer because of it.
"The product was legally sold. The government is not their personal Guido."
The enforcement of the law is the governments province. Are you now arguing that the government should "selectively" enforce the law? Also "legally sold" doesn't imply "do whatever I want".
No, it's more like this: people know that stealing is wrong, no matter what you steal or who you steal it from. There is no gray area here, yet people continue to rationalize stealing. Parents are to blame for this. Ethics courses in college would not be necessary if parents would take care of business at home.
When the RIAA gets done with suing everyone on the P2P clients, will they set their eyes on other means to force people to buy their monopolistic music? I've moved away from using P2P in favor of just getting good continuous music from shoutcast stations.
After I got into using StationRipper which Slashdot once covered, I don't even need to worry about using P2P to get music that I enjoy listening to. However, will I need to worry that the RIAA will track my use since I'm saving the music I listen to then worry that a lawsuit will fall on my door step for doing this?
You forgot:
Rich man runs for U.S. president and tries to convince his constituency that he can relate to their problems.
Founding fathers roll over in their graves as federal judges impose their will on the states.
I would like to thank you for letting me use your girlfriend. I like this new world order where everything that's mine is mine, and everything that's your's is mine.
Oh, and thanks for letting me use your car, bank account, dog, printer, and monkey.
"Mediachest is excellent because the RIAA and MPAA and FBI and whomever else cannot I repeat CANNOT get you on law breaking. As the 'swapping' happens offline, they have no way to find out about it."
"can you say "Sting Operation" boys and girls? How the hell do you think they catch kiddie porn freaks who try to meet up with kids offline? Do you know you're not setting yourself up to illegally distribute songs offline with a cop of FBI agent?"
I meet you online, then arrange to ship to you, or hand to you, my ORIGINAL legal media.
How is THAT illegal?
And how are YOU caught if you make a copy?
...is why there's even anybody left for them to sue in the first place. I stopped sharing files when the RIAA first announced they were going to sue, and that was months ago. Anyone with half a brain should have stopped after they sued the first couple of thousand. Anyone with one quarter brain...etc. etc.
I would think that by this time, the peer-to-peer networks would be just about empty, at least of sharers in the USA.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
We should turn this discussion towards a more proactive topic... Does anyone know which networks were targeted by the RIAA? Was any one network targeted more than the others? Which P2P is best for sharing with the least chance of getting caught? Are there any tools, services, or procedures one can use to reduce the chance of being caught? These are all good questions that we should be discussing.
"RIAA Sues More Music Lovers."
No, RIAA sues more suspect music pirates. Just because they love music, that doesn't make pirating music okay. That is the same kind of spin as calling all Democrats "bleeding heart liberals" or calling forces in Iraq "liberators" or calling Linux hackers "hippies."
I may risk my karma for posting that simple truth, but it is the truth. And both legally and ethically, there is no justification for pirating artists' music. There are plenty of legal online alternatives now, like iTunes. Young people just have a whiny sense of entitlement now because they're used to the convenience of pirating everything under the sun, and they get bitter when that freeloading ride is taken away.
If these guys don't want to get sued, they should just stop unlawfully copying music. It's simple really.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
No one is advocating stealing music anyway.. The advocacy is for violating copy right laws, not theft, since no theft occurred during the act of downloading..
Unlike going to the store and shoplifting a CD...
So where does your 'sphere of awareness' end? It's apparently not as large as you believe...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If you use kazaa and do not share, how could you get sued?
It would entail being a leech, but I would not share copyrighted files. People in other countries could share, countries where the govt puts the people ahead of the corporation, at least to a greater degree than here in Amerikkka.
and get an isp like sbc dsl, which does not give up your IP to the RIAA/MPAA/BSA. (I know that the mpaa is planning on starting to sue people, but is the BSA suing people?).
We can fight back against the MPAA lawsuits: they are vulnerable to grassroots protests. Much of their revenue is derived from large cineplexes which are reaching by driving along busy roads. Often they sit on a freeway access road. Several well placed protest signs near many of those cineplexes could knock down their dollar take every day.
See for example the freeway blogger.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
But the filesharer isn't "taking" anything from the recording industry.
The recording industry has, in its possession, audio recordings of some music on some fixed medium.
The filesharer has, in its possession, audio recordings of some music on some fixed medium.
The recording industry thinks its good business to try to sell you one of its physical media (containing the recording) for $15.
The filesharer, on the other hand, will let you make a copy of his recording (wherein you produce your own copy in a new fixed medium), for nothing.
So what's happened here?
Have you taken the recording industry's recordings from them? No, they've still got their fixed media. Have you even taken the filesharer's recordngs from him? Nope, he's still got his.
What have you done?
You've violated a legal privilege enjoyed by the industry, that says it may dictate who is and isn't allowed to make copies of an audio recording.
What you certainly haven't done is "not liked the price of something and taken it, instead, for free."
You were never offered, at any price, the right to make a copy (which is what you did). Instead, you were offered the physical wares (which you didn't take).
So, the real issue here is whether or not it is valid for the recording industry to make such dictates. This is not an example of it being just or unjust to take wares from vendors without rendering payment. That is a conflation of orthogonal issues, and it serves no valid purpose in debate.
Nowhere, in any of this - no matter which side you take on the legitimacy of the ``exclusive right to copy sound waves/printed words/executable machine code'' -- can an analogy be drawn between "taking" anything from anyone whatsoever.
Saying that a filesharer making a copy is doing something equivalent to shoplifting is both disingenuous and logically fallacious.
Copyright is, if anything, more like the old guild rights that said only a mason could practice masonry. If you laid your own brickwork, were you "taking" something from the mason? Certainly not. At best, you violated a specious legal privilege designed to protect his line of work.
The real question is whether the recording industry (and yes, artists themselves) deserve to enjoy this legal protection at expense of the common good.
But, that's a debate that's impossible to have, when simpletons like yourself keep spouting nonesense that goes nowhere toward fostering an actual understanding of the conflict and its possible resolution.
Need more Cowbell!
"CEOs, VPs, and execs may finally feel a pinch to make a real contribution to the product. Performers will continue to tour and perform."
Have you ACTUALLY ever toured and performed? I'm serious, you all tout this out like it's the end all, be all solution. Have YOU ever tried to make a living touring and performing? Do you know what's involved? If so, how does your experience compared to the majority?
Does a single, solitary one of you even know what it means to be an artist?
An even better question. Isn't it pure arrogance for one group of people to tell another group of people how they should earn a living? I bet you wouldn't like it if we told you that the only way we would premit you to earn a living is by panhandling on the streets.
Try this... take a large format camera to your local art museum. See if they let you in.
..ownership of copyrights. Today most copyrights are owned by the record industry and not the artists themselves. As more and more people across the world gain access to computers, a new type of artist/musician/producer will be born who will bypass large conglomerates such as the RIAA and MPAA. No longer will music be held captive in the hands of greedy capitalists, but they will truly belong to the artists themselves.
Bob has 2Gig of mp3s. Jane has 5Gig of mp3s. If they share via 1Gb/s (local) ethernet, they will quickly both have 8Gigs each.
In a few years that Gigabytes will become Terabytes. When one person can have a copy of nearly all music in existence, they will never spend a dime on it. It's too late. Content producers are fucked. Only niche markets will survive.
The theft of electronic money is something tangible. As it represents actual currency.
The redistribution of 'content' is not tangible. There is a difference. It doesn't represent actual product. You don't even buy the music when you get the CD.. you get an intangible 'right to use data' license.. ( now if you try to resell a 'right to use data' license THEN we have a problem.. )
And no, its not all about getting 'music for free'.. contrary to what you may believe. ( in my case I have purchased rights to 99% of what I have to listen too, as do feel that when an artist has done a job of value, they should be compensated for their efforts )
Its about the true definition of theft and loss, copyrights, fair use, and the ludicrous things that are going on because of the disagreements....
Disclamer, I'm only speaking from MY point of view.. others may disagree and *are* in it to just get 'content for free'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Once!
This may be semi-off topic but I don't know where else to get an answer to this question:
How do I know what material is copyrighted? I'm fairly strongly into downloading pornography and I've downloaded it before via file sharing tools (in a way that I provided uploads). How do I know which of those downloads were illegal?
On the other side I'm sure I've downloaded copyrighted material from websites that had bootlegged it themselves. How can I be guilty of a crime in that case?
If I could I'd be more then happy to limit myself to non copyrighted matieral. I'd guess there is plenty of material out there to keep me happy.
Even though I'm talking about porn here, I'm sure some people out there have the same question about shared music.
"the problem is that the industry is trying to protect a profit model thats obsolete. almost nothing is stronger than the market forces which at work and i predict they will either fail or adapt."
And if they fail, will music and the other fruits of artists suddenly be free? You speak of "market forces", but the only forces I see is the ones that criminals envoke. Here's a much stronger "market force". That of compensation for one's effort. That applies regardless of the nature of one's effort, or the form that compensation takes.
(That covers handily both the present "pay" model and the GPL)
The one element that all have in common is that both parties recognize this relationship, and honor it. That's not what's happening here.
I should also point out that your "Fail, or adopt" mantra sounds suspiciously like what a terrorist would invoke. "Spain's government will either fail by staying in Iraq, or adopt and get out of Iraq".
I'd laugh my ass off if either of the **AA's came after me.
I have no assets whatsoever - even the computer I use. I exist at this time totally on the charity of others.
So bring it on, **AA's.
Seriously, if we accept for the sake of discussion that the **IAA'a can, under law, sue file-sharers for "lost revenues," then the outrageous part is that they can sue for ridiculously unreal "losses" per file. The actual price per song, at the current average from actual CD prices, is all they could be allowed. So the **IA's best bet would be to send the person - now a de facto customer - a bill for the tunes/videos - and let the person dispute it. In other words, let the **IA's join the 21st Century and go with the changes. Or they can fight it and eventually slide into history.
Now before I get flamed for appearing to concede the **AA's right to press for "losses" at any rate... I strongly feel the laws that permit this whole stupid state of affairs are wrong, wrong, wrong. There's a whole civil disobedience dimension to the sharing brouhaha we rarely discuss. Some of us share files just because the laws in this respect are unjust.
My sister, who is in the legal profession, always quips "There is no justice in court; only law." In which case, one of the ways to increase the level of justice in the laws is to fight unjust laws. And a most basic way to do that is to refuse to comply...but also accept that the legal system can bite on the ass for it.
So ! the **IA's, et. al.
Best,
Mal the Elder
Computers have made it an easy matter to scan books and redistribute them. There are high speed scanners, good optical character recognition software, and plenty of bandwidth to simply distribute an entire book as a collection of graphics instead of rendering them back into text.
But book copyrights are seldom violated in the US, and almost never violated using PC technology. Why? Readers are more law abiding than music enthusiasts? Readers are too lazy to scan a book? Or is it because people resent the record companies' graft, corruption and excessive profiteering?
The abuses of the RIAA companies are well known. They include payola (paying radio DJs and station managers cash or coccaine to play their records), addicting artists to drugs to control them, and charging $20 for a CD that costs them $1 for the plastic, paper and distribution. The only place this sort of weasel behavior is remotely close to book publishing is the textbook marketing racket, which could teach the Mafia a thing or two about profit margins and market share.
The RIAA and John Ashcroft are legally in the right on this, even if it is difficult to agree with them on general principles, and it's difficult to respect a law that protects such weasels. I'll throw my lot in with the others who say, "Vote with your wallet. Don't buy RIAA products. Lobby your favorite bands to leave RIAA companies and make it financially viable for them to do so."
Geeks continue to compare SCO and the RIAA. At first, they seem like completely different issues, but there are some definite similarities. Both have outdated business models, both are weasels who prefer to fight in court than embrace new technology and profit from it, and both are making a lot of noise right now but will soon be insignificant footnotes in the history of technology.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Neither means anything. The RIAA 'spies' can get the fact that you are advertising the content for download from the trackers. Your 'IP blocker' and the source code do not mitigate this fact.
"I clearly, openly, and honestly maintain that since the RIAA (and Disney) stole the public domain by indefinitely extending the copyright period, any and all downloading, copying, and sharing of anything, anywhere is morally and ethically justified."
Human ethics are like that. Anyway you obviously have no problem serving punishment for pulling a "Ghandi". Oh no, wait. That's what 90 % of the comments on this board are about. Being punished for "civil disobediance", and how we can avoid that.
"They are the ones who have destroyed the copyright laws, not us. We are only protecting the public domain for future generations. It is right and proper that we do so."
Really? So when the Sonny Bono act was winding it's way through Congress, you were there on the front lines fighting for our "public domain"? Or were you there at the voting booth, voting for representatives that feel as you do? How about writing letters not only to your representatives, but the media as well? Or were you voting early with your wallet and not buying the offending products, and writing letters to the CEO's and shareholders of these companies? Quite frankly I doubt you have ever done any of those things, and you have the unmitugated gall to pretend that your somehow doing the rest of us a favour. Not only do you make those of us who do obey the law look bad. Those of us who are legally working to make the system work again are being hurt time and again by your sort of vigilantism? What's "right and proper" you didn't do, and now your "wrong and improper" for your self-serving ends is only going to make things worse.
You mean copyrighted recordings.
If the claim was violation of copyright on the song, we would be talking about someone else performing the song.
What we are talking about insatead is a particular recording of a particular performance of the song. That's also copyrighted. The two copyrights are not the same, just as the song is not the same as a performance of it.
"Any act that they do against us is a crime: extorting money from us and stealing our property."
Since you and your coherts have never actually produced any of this "property" . What else but arrogance makes you think it's yours. All you do is "consume" this property for your own enjoyment.
Quite frankly as mean as it may be to say. I do hope every artist on the planet stops producing "property" for your enjoyment. "Public Domain" exists in part because some of the "public" chooses to contribute. Instead of telling the other half that they better or "else". Oh no, wait. There's no "else". There's no "stick", but just "carrots" and rather withered looking ones at that. So tell me "music lovers", what are you going to do when no one wishes to create "property" under your terms? All you "book lovers", what are you going to do when no one wishes to create "property" under your terms?
Maybe the "imbalance" here is that one side feels they don't need the other. Anyone care to test the reality? Hey we're "starving artists" already. What do we have to loose?
The RIAA thinks by using scare tactics on a few people it will stop the millions of people that trade files online. This is stupid for two reasons:
1. The "long arm of the US law" doesn't extend beyond US borders. Good luck trying to sue file traders in Iran.
2. Tech savy people will stop using file trading software and operate their own FTP servers. I've already done this. My friends and I login to my FTP site and upload and download the newest stuff we aquire (VPN and login required). It's alot like trading tapes back in the day. If the RIAA tries to crack my server, i'll sue the hell out of them for unlawful search and seizure, trespassing, and any other terrorist technicality my attorney can find for breaking into my private server.
I used to actually buy CDs. I no longer want to thanks to the strongarm tactics of the RIAA (I buy only used CDs now). The RIAA can go f themselves.
-ted
Statistically, I imagine, more people are killed crossing the street every year than the RIAA has sued in two. No one has yet stopped crossing the street, and people still don't use the crosswalks.
Out of 250 million or so people down in the US, the numbers they are suing per year are never eneough to create enough fear in p2p users.
Actually, I would point out that *they* (the RIAA) gave themselves these laws through "our" legislators. Unless you think that Congress was accurately representing the sentiments of the American populace and not corporate interests when they passed the DMCA, Pirate Act, copyright extensions, and soon the Induce Act?
No, no they do not need to come up with a new way of making money. They need to die through a short but highly painful bankruptcy process.
an interesting legal idea: the government is now trying people under newer, harsher, more unreasonable "terrorist" laws. Example: trying drug dealers as "manufacturing chemical weapons" instead of the less frightening and less severe "drug trafficing". So if a criminal is caught and is going to be pounded by the "MAN" what he should do is to quickly hire someone to charge him of the same crime but under a less severe law and then he will quickly plead quilty before he is taken to trial for the more severe charges. Then because of U.S.A. 'double jepardy' laws the Gov. will not be allowed to procede with their case. Now IANAL, but I do recall a case where a murderer was found 'not guilty' and then evidence was later found prooving UNQUESTIONABLY that he did do the murder and he then admited that he did, but they could only then charge him for PURGERY (because he said he did not do it in the first trial) and WOULD NOT/COULD NOT re-try him for the murder, so he spent (a maximum of) 7 years in jail because for purgery instead of 20+ (to life) for the murder. So the next time some company or organization cough*RIAA*cough sues one of us under the DMCA we just need one of our friends to sue us under existing copywright laws (when it applies), hand the pittance over to whoever is suing us and then tell them to shove the DMCA up their RJ45 plug.
I also thought bittorrent was safe, until I received a letter from my ISP, Optimum Online. Paramount wanted them to warn me. Subsequently I installed an IP blocker (Blocklist Manager + Protowall) and I thought I'd be safe till I saw your posting.
So I got to thinking, this download information that the tracker gives, is it necessary? Would there be a way to seed that list with random cable modem ip addresses and torrents, without screwing up the bittorrent network too much? Then the people using IP blockers couldn't be distinguised from some grandpa who randomly ended up on the list.
Headline: The RIAA sued people again. Those dicks.
Comment 1: FIRST POST!
Comment 2: Man, the music industry sucks.
Comment 3: Its illegal. period
Comment 3a: STFU, dink.
Comment 4: if albums didn't suck, people would buy them instead of downloading the songs thay like
Comment 4a: can someone send me the new Modest Mouse album?
Comment 5: I hate rich musicians, because they're rich
Comment 6: [ something about gay niggers that ususally gets modded out of existence ]
Comment 7: its all the fault of the government, because theyre clueless
Comment 8: You cannot stop technology. Technology is legion.
- - - -
You can now go read another article.
enough of the lawsuit count, guys.
s'wut i sed.
And at that point we will be distributing copyrighted work that belongs to someone with less money. We still won't pay for it.
And this is better how?
So I got to thinking, this download information that the tracker gives, is it necessary?
No, it's not necessary for the tracker to report this information publically. The stock (official) tracker does NOT do this.
Would there be a way to seed that list with random cable modem ip addresses and torrents, without screwing up the bittorrent network too much?
This would greatly decrease the effectiveness of torrents.. the RIAA are a peer like any other peer. If you hurt their ability to gather IPs, you also hurt everyone else's.
DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
Bit Torrent IS NOT SAFE.
Take this story.
My ISP operates behind a router. All people who use the ISP do not have a public IP. A few months ago, my ISP got a call from the RIAA about their IP sharing "large amounts of music" using bit torrent. My ISP did a bandwidth usage test on all their private interal IPs to find out who was uploading the most data w/bit torrent.
Now I'm not entirely innocent, but at the time I was seeding Knoppix 3.4 and I was uploading the most data. My Windows machine was off; my Linux machine was out of commission. All I had online was my iBook and it didn't have any music on it whatsoever, much less libraries of thousands of pirated songs. All I was doing was seeding Knoppix.
Despite this, my ISP accused me of illegal usage of bit torrent and my service was cut. I would have been sued if I had not proven that my activity was 100% legal. My service was later restored.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Of course he isn't. Why should he be? The idea that people who disobey unjust authority not only deserve but should stand up and immediately take their "just deserts" as martyrs misses the point completely.
Yes, that is exactly right.
THe only safe thing to do is LEECH. You cannot share copyrighted files. And if you download using bittorrent even one time, you can be caught. There are several posters here on this thread that had that very thing happen to them.
So, it seems that the only safe way is to just use kazaa, and either turn off sharing for all files, or do not share individual copyrighted files.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
...and wrong. Parent is an immature and irrational rant.
Copyright was extended to 75 years by the Sony Bono Act. Copyright has not been extended "indefinitely."
How do you come to "own" something that you've bought with a license? And certainly, how can you "own" something in the Public domain?
Anyway, nearly-public-domain materials are not the issue. I don't think Charlie Parker's or Django Reinhart's families/estates are really suffering a huge loss due to P2P, though they're probably losing some. The overwhelming majority of traded MP3s concert materials created within the last 25 years.
You are not morally justified in stealing anything. And if you try to steal my recordings, I hope the RIAA takes you down on my behalf.
In C++, friends can touch each other's private parts.
That reminds me of my first Comp Sci class, where the professor taught us the basics of C++. When explaining the nature of private, protected, and public functions, she tried to explain it by saying "you'd let everyone have access to your public members, but you only want your friends messing with your privates." Only after she said it did she realize how perverted it sounded.
This is the same professor who also mispronounced the word "unary" as "urinary". Oops.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
"Maybe we could just enjoy the works of those who create for the love of the creation... Or are you insinuating that "artists" only produce "content" for reimbursement?"
Or maybe artist could become an insular crowd sharing their "love" amoungst those who would not abuse them. Or are you "insinuating" that artist only do it for the abuse.
Here's a small clue for you. We do what we do for our "itch". We don't have to share any more than you have to share your code. However we CHOOSE to share with others, for similiar reasons to yours. We don't HAVE TO. Now some of us love what we do, and feel that we're of enough talent that we can actually make a living. Just as you may feel that your coding skills are enough to earn a living. Note to audiance, there can be a "starving coder", every bit as there can be a "starving artist".
Now the next part I really shouldn't have to explain, but then again...
We all have wants, and needs. So far we've come up with a system of exchange that works in satisfying wants and needs (for the most part).
You'll note that the exchange rate of "love" is pretty low. People want something physical they can admire. That means that artist have to purchase physical items to render their "empherical" ideas physically. That also means that the audiance will not be paying in "love". But likewise physical items that will make the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker whom the artist is in debt to, happy. Hopefully there's enough left over to encourage the artist to not stop there, but make more, and maybe, just maybe. Do what everyone else who isn't an artist will do. Oh you know. Start a family that will become citizens of a great nation. Pay taxes so that artist and nonartist alike will have nice streets to drive. Get some more "payed with love" education so that they can be a better artist.
So here's the deal. We'll accept "love" in payment for our services, if all you nonartists accept "love" in payment for yours.
Odds are someone (not the artist) spent money marketing them.
While I'd love to see the complete collapse of the Major Labels, this ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Artists are unlikely to ditch the majors for your service - they can already get their music out there on an indie label, iTunes, etc if they want to go without the massive promotional and distro mechanisms of the majors. To enter into a legal deal with you (which is the only practical way if they want to accept money and still have legal rights when they believe your service is doing what music companies have always done - rip off their artists) they would have to pretty much pass on a Major or Indy contracts and finance all promotion themselves (this is not cheap). And in the end their music sees the world as crappy sounding MP3's with little in the way of proper cover art, credits, etc. etc. Serious players (i.e. most people's favorite artists) ain't generally gonna wanna play this way.
Well I'm going to prove here that even an AC is worth answering . :)
"I think you may misunderstand the meaning of Public Domain. There was a time when copyrighted material would only remain copyrighted for a specified period of time (20 years, the life of the artist whatever). After that time it was considered to be "in the public domain" not owned by anyone. You can own a copy of such material, but nobody has an exclusive right to distribute it or license it."
Oh I understand "public domain" quite clearly. What I had a problem with is his attitude. I should point that when copyright works the way it's suppose to, the agreement that artist implicitly sign when they release their works says that will eventually become public domain. I don't have a problem with that, and I bet that most artists don't.
"In recent years, mega media corporations have pushed and lobbied (repeatedly and successfully) to have the period of time extended over and over again. So rather than making an effort to "create" new material, they made it their business to legislate continued profit off of old material."
OK, so how's that the artists fault? As I pointed out repeatedly. You can not have an absenteeism population. You want fair copyright, you have to not only establish it, but maintain a constant vigel so that it remains that way.
The Sierra Club, NOW, unions and greenpeace amounst many has shown you all the way to get the system you desire. No more of this "I'm helpless. Will someone stronger than I help me?" BS.
"This seems to be an increasingly common behavior by corporations. Witness for instance the sucessful effort by Credit Card companies to make it more difficult to shed debt in personal bankruptcy. Rather than doing the hard work of determining who is a good risk and who is a bad risk when granting credit, they simply legislated new rights for themselves. Eliminating a major cost of doing business for themselves and driving more American citizens into ruinous debt that they cannot handle."
I'm sorry did you just say "There's no such thing as personal responsability"? Yeah credit card companies share some of the blame, but you have the sole responsability to say NO. No one else can do that for you. And yes I speak as someone who's spent many years getting the credit card monkey off my back. But if I had said NO to begin with...well you figure it out.
Someone said that bittorrent isn't being targeted by the riaa and the movie industry. I'd like to put that notion to rest. There's even a company actively monitoring bittorrents of illegal downloads and contacting the isps. If you're using bt and thinking you're safe, you're wrong.
The typical amount of infringment that occurs when someone uses a p2p network would probably be about the same of infringment that would occur in a unauthorised public performance at a wedding reception, birthday party, etc. I don't see music from 70+ years ago being played, so that music must be all copyrighted works.
So are we to expect the RIAA to sue a number of people who hold large parties or weddings? I'm sure that would do wonders for their music sales.
How about calling any person who holds a party of some sort a thief>?!
How about the RIAA making agreements with a university so that they can incorporate licensing costs of public broadcasts of music at university parties in to student fees?!Yet another ironic recursive statement.
I like to take GPL code and convert it to a BSD licence, compile it up and release it without the source code. I mean the BSD licence has no problems with me doing this, so GPL folks should get with the times. Copyright laws and all that stuff are just artificial laws. GPL is an outdated licence and should move with the times. BSD all the way!
-- You're too stupid to be an atheist.
It would be hilarious if somebody spread a worm that did that. Then the RIAA would be suing the wrong people all the time, and people that did have a bunch of mp3's would have an excuse. "It was that worm!"
Yes. Create a new original work. Get paid for it. THEN
It goes back to the public. You're protected for a limited time. Life + 75 years is *NOT* a limited time. None of us will live to see anything created today enter the public domain. NOTHING. We may not even see shit from the 60's enter the public domain.
I DON'T CLAIM TO HAVE A HUMAN RIGHT TO OWN ALL MUSIC OTHERS HAVE CREATED.
But they don't have the right to control distribution of their works for eternity. It's a fucking monopoly, plain and simple. Monopolies are not good for society. Especially monopolies on culture. We limit the monopoly of copyright so that everyone can enjoy the creations of our peers. We limit the monopoly of copyright to encourage growth, to allow people a chance to make improvements, to better ourselves.
Life + 75 years is not limited. It is an indefinite amount of time. So I will continue to buy CD's from independent artists. I will continue to download the music I want off the internet. I agree with the original 'controversal' poster.
The Entertainment industry has destroyed the copyright system, and what you are observing is the reaction to their actions.
So put a sock in it. You have no fucking argument. You have no logic or fact to support your opinion. That makes you a tool~!
I really doubt a list of file names would stand up in court.
It doesn't matter.
The case doesn't go to the court because, guilty or not, because it's too expensive even if you win. They'll settle.
It may take some time but eventually an accused file swapper will take this defensive route.
One in a billion, perhaps. Others simply won't have enough funds to go trough court proceedings, EVEN IF THEY'RE SURE TO WIN, bending to RIAA may well end up cheaper than getting a "let go".
Your version is just as slanted, claiming to do "correction" while doing the same error in another direction is even more stupid than the one of Slashdot editors, which was stupid enough.
I wonder how long it will take before someone decides to use violence because the courts are failing the people.
Why all the AC posting? LOL
It's called irony with a bit of sarcasm. BTW. Thanks for pointing it out.
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!